16 / 44.1 is NOT enough to fully capture the content of an LP when ripping the LP and playing back on good equipment.

I've convinced myself that vinyl carries more information that 16 / 44.1 simply by ripping the same material to both 16 bit and 24 bit and comparing. The 24 bit vinyl rips of the SAME material sounds better -- more punch, smoother, more natural -- I realize these are all subjective but I did this test with no axe to grind and I was actually hoping 16 bits would be enough since I could then move these also to my iPod for convenience -- however, the comparison was convincing enough that despite less convenience (must dither the files to play on iPod) and more storage space needed, I settled on 24 bit for my ripping process.

It would be very easy to do a double-blind ABX test of the 16-bit vs 24-bit files to prove that you really heard a difference.

Generating the 16-bit version from the 24-bit version is the easiest - guaranteed time + level matched.

Time aligning separately captured 24-bit and 16-bit captures should also be possible. Unless something else changed between captures, there should be no level difference.

Cheers,David.

EDIT: more interestingly, you could upload a 30 second 24-bit capture, and anyone here could create a 16-bit version and ABX the two - though not necessarily with the same high quality playback. We would, however, benefit from your high quality vinyl playback and capture.

Generating the 16-bit version from the 24-bit version is the easiest - guaranteed time + level matched.

Just wondering, would it be helpful to generate a 48bit recording, if possible, and then derive both the 24 and 16-bit version from that 'master', since 48 is an integer multiple of both 16 and 24, and additionally it would eliminate possible problems with the resampler?

I still tend to compare audio resampling to image resampling, where downsampling with any factor that is not a power of 2 often yields imbalanced and blurry results. If that comparison is completely misguided, I'd like to know.

This discussion shows the amazing fact that vinyl, though being half a century or older in its mature form, was still good enough to be even considered compared to todays technology.

Only because people want it to. Certainly not because of the inherent technical properties of vinyl.

I returned to vinyl because the odds were better there that the recordings would not be squashed in the mastering process. To my ears the damage of compression is significant so I prefer to rip vinyl and listen to that.

I may also have a preference for the euphonic distortions as well, but I think the main improvement has to do with the mastering. The improvement in dynamic range can be easily measured with AudioLeak or Pure Music by comparing a vinyl rip's dynamic range (RMS to Peak) to the same song on a CD. This does NOT prove that LP is technically better, but it practically has proven to me that in today's world of hypercompressed CDs that I get an improved dynamic range (RMS to Peak) typically from LPs and I certainly prefer the sound of vinyl.

If CDs return to better mastering practices and less compression then I will be ecstatic and probably and could once again enjoy the convenience of CDs -- cleaning and ripping vinyl is a lot of work!

Only because people want it to. Certainly not because of the inherent technical properties of vinyl.

Whatever the reason is, many people find that vinyl is "good enough" for their listening. This could be due to bias or not, I still think it is remarkable given the age of the medium. How many argue for betamax video tapes these days?

I returned to vinyl because the odds were better there that the recordings would not be squashed in the mastering process. To my ears the damage of compression is significant so I prefer to rip vinyl and listen to that.

The problem is (as discussed elsewhere) that just because something is released on vinyl it doesn't mean it's a different mix or has been mastered any differently to the CD version.

Just wondering, would it be helpful to generate a 48bit recording, if possible, and then derive both the 24 and 16-bit version from that 'master', since 48 is an integer multiple of both 16 and 24, and additionally it would eliminate possible problems with the resampler?

No. Man-made DAC and ADC tend to be limited to approximately 20 bits or real resolution. Higher intermediate may make sense to avoid round-off errors, but that is very algorithm-specific.

QUOTE

I still tend to compare audio resampling to image resampling, where downsampling with any factor that is not a power of 2 often yields imbalanced and blurry results. If that comparison is completely misguided, I'd like to know.

This comparision is flawed because you are comparing bit-depth to sample-rate. The relevant analogy would be "Is 16 bit per pixel enough to compare 8 bit per pixel to 12 bit per pixel image formats?" I believe that it is.

Further, image resampling is different from audio resampling in that audio tend to adhere to sampling theoreme quite well, while images tend to "let through" a lot of aliasing to increase the perceived sharpness (and because complex optical/digital image filters are often expensive or practically impossible).

I've convinced myself that vinyl carries more information that 16 / 44.1 simply by ripping the same material to both 16 bit and 24 bit and comparing. The 24 bit vinyl rips of the SAME material sounds better -- more punch, smoother, more natural

I have also compared 16 and 24 bit rips of vinyl and I hear no difference.

There are other possible reasons why 24 bit sounds better than 16 bit to you:

1. Expectation bias. It's no use saying that you had no axe to grind and were hoping 16 bit would be good enough. If you did these comparisons sighted, then the results are not trustworthy. You need to repeat the comparison blind. Using Foobar's ABX comparator is very easy, so there's no excuse not to do a blind test.

Let's assume you do a blind test and still hear a difference between 24 and 16 bit rips. If you made the two recordings in separate runs, then there are possible reasons why the results may sound different:

2. Vinyl is an analogue medium and is not 100% repeatable in playback. The two recordings *will* have delivered different signals. For example, the first play of an LP typically cleans the grooves out a bit, so a subsequent play might deliver slightly less surface noise. Or particles of dust may fall onto the record prior to the second play, resulting in additional minors ticks.

3. You got the gain staging slightly different so that the levels are not precisely matched. Even if you don't consciously notice a volume difference, small level differences can still alter the way things sound.

If the goal here is to discover whether vinyl contains more information than can be captured at 16 bit, then the correct methodology is to record once at 24 bit, then convert that same recording to 16 bit and do an ABX comparison. In principle you should add dither when converting to 16 bit, but IMHO the vinyl noise floor is so high that you can probably afford to just truncate the bottom 8 bits.

CliveB, thanks for your response -- I actually did the test exactly as you suggested. I used MBIT+ dithering of the 24 bit 96 khz down to 16 bit 44.1 -- I first convert the bitrate then I convert the sample rate. I think your suggestions on bias are certainly fair, the other bias that you maybe didn't mention is that converting directly to 16 / 44.1 may be better than downsampling from 24 / 96 down to 16 / 44.1. My Burl ADC only samples at 24 bit so I have to dither down to 16 bit to compare.

I'm checking with the moderator on how I can upload some samples for folks to check out for themselves.

And to be clear, I think at least 90% of my preference for vinyl has to do with improved mastering done for vinyl, perhaps a preference for euphonic distortion (although I can't really prove this), and perhaps a preference for some high end roll off (CDs tend to sound harsh, grainy and bright in comparison to me).

I mentioned my experience with deciding on 24 bit vinyl rips over 16 bit vinyl because I thought it would be interesting here for folks to hear that perspective.

My primary point though would be that LPs in general are less compressed than CD counterparts and that makes a HUGE difference in the enjoyment factor of the material, especially when you turn up the music. Again, I don't discount the fact that I perhaps prefer my music uncompressed I think it opens up the soundstage and allows the music to be played loud without fatigue.

I returned to vinyl because the odds were better there that the recordings would not be squashed in the mastering process. To my ears the damage of compression is significant so I prefer to rip vinyl and listen to that.

The problem is (as discussed elsewhere) that just because something is released on vinyl it doesn't mean it's a different mix or has been mastered any differently to the CD version.

Absolutely true -- in fact, I recently experienced the opposite with Sugar's "Copper Blue". I was excited to get the vinyl release BUT the LP sounded worse than the CD. This rarely is the case in my experience but it was true in this case. The CD sounded less compressed.

Garbage in garbage out...

If the LP is just a pressing of the same CD master then my enjoyment of the LP over the CD is probably due to euphonic distortion or roll off of the highs.

However, there are quite a few cases where the LP mastering has been given special attention, certainly all the releases done by Mobile Fidelity. To my ears those releases sound stunning.

CliveB, thanks for your response -- I actually did the test exactly as you suggested. I used MBIT+ dithering of the 24 bit 96 khz down to 16 bit 44.1 -- I first convert the bitrate then I convert the sample rate. I think your suggestions on bias are certainly fair, the other bias that you maybe didn't mention is that converting directly to 16 / 44.1 may be better than downsampling from 24 / 96 down to 16 / 44.1. My Burl ADC only samples at 24 bit so I have to dither down to 16 bit to compare.

This is the wrong order. Decreasing the bitrate, with dithering, should always be the LAST step. Otherwise you have negated the previously applied dither and introduced additional digital noise when you downsampled.

16 / 44.1 is NOT enough to fully capture the content of an LP when ripping the LP and playing back on good equipment.

I've convinced myself that vinyl carries more information that 16 / 44.1 simply by ripping the same material to both 16 bit and 24 bit and comparing. The 24 bit vinyl rips of the SAME material sounds better -- more punch, smoother, more natural -- I realize these are all subjective but I did this test with no axe to grind and I was actually hoping 16 bits would be enough since I could then move these also to my iPod for convenience -- however, the comparison was convincing enough that despite less convenience (must dither the files to play on iPod) and more storage space needed, I settled on 24 bit for my ripping process.

It would be very easy to do a double-blind ABX test of the 16-bit vs 24-bit files to prove that you really heard a difference.

Generating the 16-bit version from the 24-bit version is the easiest - guaranteed time + level matched.

Time aligning separately captured 24-bit and 16-bit captures should also be possible. Unless something else changed between captures, there should be no level difference.

Cheers,David.

EDIT: more interestingly, you could upload a 30 second 24-bit capture, and anyone here could create a 16-bit version and ABX the two - though not necessarily with the same high quality playback. We would, however, benefit from your high quality vinyl playback and capture.

Thanks -- I appreciate your note -- I'm checking with the moderator on rules for uploading samples. I captured at 24 bit / 96 kHz and dithered those down to 16 bit / 44.1 using MBit+ dithering -- I could provide samples of both. Note that on a laptop I hear no difference, on my Burmester stereo turned up nice and comfortably loud I hear a difference, I can perhaps provide some insight on what I'm hearing for others to compare against.

Note that as I said before, I think the better sound of vinyl is mainly attributed to better mastering with less compression -- I typically get more dynamic range (peak to rms) from a vinyl release than from commercial CD counterparts and I think that sonic difference is dramatic.

CliveB, thanks for your response -- I actually did the test exactly as you suggested. I used MBIT+ dithering of the 24 bit 96 khz down to 16 bit 44.1 -- I first convert the bitrate then I convert the sample rate. I think your suggestions on bias are certainly fair, the other bias that you maybe didn't mention is that converting directly to 16 / 44.1 may be better than downsampling from 24 / 96 down to 16 / 44.1. My Burl ADC only samples at 24 bit so I have to dither down to 16 bit to compare.

This is the wrong order. Decreasing the bitrate, with dithering, should always be the LAST step. Otherwise you have negated the previously applied dither and introduced additional digital noise when you downsampled.

Thanks Clive, I followed whatever order Izotope recommended so I probably did do it in the order you suggested. To be sure, I will redo it again and have another listen. Hopefully I can sort out a way to upload them.

I, too, however, am tired of the myriad of deniers of obvious issues like euphonic distortion.

If you are referring to me, I beg to differ -- I'm not in denial at all.

To my ears, as a practical matter at this point in time, LPs sound way better than CDs. Why? Mostly due to the mastering not being so heavily compressed when they make the vinyl -- also probably due to some bias I have for euphonic distortion and the fact that the high end of vinyl seems to roll off which may reduce some of the grain / harshness that I hear on my CDs.

I believe I DO prefer the euphonic distortion since I compared an HDTracks download at 24 / 49 to the same song on vinyl and I prefered the vinyl still. This sort of proved to me that I have a bias towards the distortions of vinyl.

That said, I thought my experience that 24 bit vinyl sounded better than 16 bit vinyl would be interesting to folks who maybe don't prefer the biased sonics of vinyl -- and I'm hoping to upload some samples, but the fact that I mention that does not mean I'm in denial about why I love vinyl.

I think everyone who loves music during this day and age so help figure out a way to get CDs to sound good again or simply switch over to vinyl. In my opinion the hyper compression is a HUGE and dramatic sonic disaster for anyone who wants to crank up some tunes and really get into them.

Whatever the reason is, many people find that vinyl is "good enough" for their listening. This could be due to bias or not, I still think it is remarkable given the age of the medium. How many argue for betamax video tapes these days?

Yeahbut you can see the 250 lines of luma resolution, 30 lines of chroma resolution, picture noise, drop outs, time base errors etc throughout the video, whatever the content.

Whereas, with good condition vinyl on an excellent turntable, most pop music sounds fine. You can only hear the crackles between the tracks, and then, who cares? It sounds good enough. It's inconvenient and easily damaged, but the sound is fine.

What I don't understand are people who listen to classical music from vinyl. There are such people. They ignore the imperfections of vinyl the same way that they ignore people coughing in the concert hall (to quote Mr Fremer). Myself, I'd rather no one was coughing At the very least, if the performance only exists on vinyl, I'd rather digitise it and remove any obvious clicks before listening to it.

There's an upload section. Everyone has permission. Anything under 30 seconds is fine.

QUOTE

I captured at 24 bit / 96 kHz and dithered those down to 16 bit / 44.1 using MBit+ dithering -- I could provide samples of both. Note that on a laptop I hear no difference, on my Burmester stereo turned up nice and comfortably loud I hear a difference, I can perhaps provide some insight on what I'm hearing for others to compare against.

There are other threads where we've discussed the potential advantages of higher sample rates. There's no sound(!) theoretical reason why higher sample rates should sound better. Plenty of possible reasons why a given implementation might - especially once you consider driving non-linear transducers (i.e. any speaker) with the output of imperfect filtering (most DACs). Even then, I think there have been only two or three "successful" ABX tests in over a decade of HA, and those were dubious IIRC.

QUOTE

Note that as I said before, I think the better sound of vinyl is mainly attributed to better mastering with less compression -- I typically get more dynamic range (peak to rms) from a vinyl release than from commercial CD counterparts and I think that sonic difference is dramatic.

I think it's hit and miss, and I'm not going to indulge an industry that's scr3wing me like this by buying two copies of everything to find the best.

There's still plenty of music out there that is well mastered. Sadly most chart CDs are so smashed that I can hear the distortion on my car stereo, never mind my hi-fi.

They ignore the imperfections of vinyl the same way that they ignore people coughing in the concert hall

In my living room, I have a big couple of well-prononuced double D-size humps. They can certainly be a bit distracting, but after getting used to them I can fairly well mentally compensate and still focus on the music.

Paradoxially, I've put a lot of money in them. (I even upgraded from a smaller pair with the same mid and tweeter, so there's a lot of 8"s to get them into resonance.)

I returned to vinyl because the odds were better there that the recordings would not be squashed in the mastering process. To my ears the damage of compression is significant so I prefer to rip vinyl and listen to that.

The problem is (as discussed elsewhere) that just because something is released on vinyl it doesn't mean it's a different mix or has been mastered any differently to the CD version.

Vinyl is so technically limited that it is pretty much a given that most good contemporary program materially has been modified in potentially audible ways to make it *fit* onto vinyl.

Where does that bullshit notion come from? Did you ever look at a spectrogram from a test record?

Yes. It is impossible for an LP's frequency response in use to be any better than the cartridge that tracks it, and there simply are no cartridges that have flat, smooth frequency response that can be sensibly mentioned in the same sentence as a CD.

I tested my denon dl 103 with the Flloyd Toole test record and the spectrogram as displayed on my DEQ 2496 is almost perfectly flat after the RIAA decompression from 20Hz to 20kHz.

Spectrograms are usually do not have the highest resolutions. It is possible to set parameters so that they 0.1 dB resolution, but that is not done often for practical reasons.

QUOTE

Where do YOU have any proof for your nonsense like: and vinyl cut out the hi freq.

It is well known that the trackability of cartridges suffers at high frequencies. This document shows trackabilty for one of the best-tracking cartridges known to man:V15 User Manual Trackability starts suffering greatly above 3 KHz.

QUOTE

The recording/tracking ability of vinyl is easily at least 50 kHz and perhaps as high as 100 kHz.

It is well known that frequency response is not smooth, distortion is not low, and groove life is not good at those frequencies.

QUOTE

The most notably proof of this is the CD4 quadraphonic system which relied on a 45 kHz bandwidth to be accurately reproduced.

Not true. CD4 decoders contained quite a bit of technology to recover the high frequency carrier in the face of the technical problems with tracking it. First generation CD4 decoders were notoriously sensitive to the condition of the recording and the playback stylus.

QUOTE

That said, the high-frequency response accuracy of vinyl varies tremendously. Frequency deviations of 5-10 dB or greater are not uncommon in the 20 kHz range for many records.

Only because people want it to. Certainly not because of the inherent technical properties of vinyl.

Whatever the reason is, many people find that vinyl is "good enough" for their listening.

Many people still ride horses and find that they are good enough for certain kinds of recreational transportation. The number of people choosing horses over more modern means for transcontinental trips is usually vanishing.

Many people still listen to LP and find that they are good enough for certain kinds of recreational listening. The number of people choosing LPs over more modern means when they go jogging is usually vanishing.

I, too, however, am tired of the myriad of deniers of obvious issues like euphonic distortion.

If you are referring to me, I beg to differ -- I'm not in denial at all.

To my ears, as a practical matter at this point in time, LPs sound way better than CDs. Why? Mostly due to the mastering not being so heavily compressed when they make the vinyl

Since vinyl has inherent significant dynamic range limitations compared to CDs, it is much more likely to have had its dynamic range compressed in order to create a listenable and playback LP.

If the music on a CD is significantly compressed, that was an artistic or market-driven choice, not done to compensate or adapt the music to any limitations of the CD format.

Absolutely -- my point is PRACTICAL not THEORETICAL here, for whatever reason (market driven, itunes, etc..) the reality is that in this day and age an LP sounds better than the commercial CD counterpart, often by a long shot, especially any CD remasters of music that was originally done on vinyl from the 70s or 80s.

To not listen to vinyl because it theoretically SHOULD sound worse is sad to me -- we live an imperfect world in the first place, so it comes down to what sounds more musical to an individual. I think people should give it a try, crank it up, listen to it, look at the measurements, look at the waveforms and decide if the hiss and crackle is a reasonable price of admission for a more dynamic and 3D experience. And yes, CD's COULD sound as good in these respects but in our day and age they just do not.

I own thousands of CDs, many are very good -- but most in recent years so like crap when you turn them up on a good system -- my only way to fight the loudness wars is to buy vinyl right now.

I have a big couple of well-prononuced double D-size humps. They can certainly be a bit distracting

Paradoxially, I've put a lot of money in them. (I even upgraded from a smaller pair

Is anyone else reading this and thinking "breast implants?!", or is it just me?

What are you actually talking about Porcus? Please explain and stop me looking quite so stupid! I'm assuming speakers, but...?

Of course the hump enhancing the sixty-nine ... Hertz (oooh, auf Deutsch!) ... which is amplified way beyond what is natural and beautiful, it is of course the frequency response curve in my room. Humpty-dumpty.

(Freud is quoted to have said that puns are the lowest form of wit, and I bet that was in response to the nth joke over his name.)